Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Well, it's a teaser, not even a trailer :-)

 

"This contains lies about earlier systems used to make his system seem innovative,

if not down right "revolutionary"."

 

I think the video showed the difference pretty clearly: the lenses are not only able to change distance (to adjust the strength of 3D?) but also tilt towards each other to converge in the focus point and that's the innovative part!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 305
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, it's a teaser, not even a trailer :-)

 

While I didn't time the preview, the Avatar trailer felt like about 2 minutes prior to Inglorious Basterds. That's why I considered it a trailer as it showed me alot more than what I'm used to seeing in a teaser.

 

Actually it felt like it showed me a little of everything except the story.

 

That's fine if it's a masterpiece and we'll all forget about the trailers/teasers we saw in August, but at this point it can still just as easily be another Waterworld. Meaning high production value terrible story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the video showed the difference pretty clearly: the lenses are not only able to change distance (to adjust the strength of 3D?) but also tilt towards each other to converge in the focus point and that's the innovative part!?

 

Here are some stereo patents with mirror systems that are still in use:

 

 

Ramsdell, filed in 1949:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=6ytHAAAAE...;q=&f=false

 

Spottiswoode, filed in 1954:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=fNZNAAAAE...era&f=false

 

Both of these can get the lenses down to a ZERO INTER-AXIAL.

& can converge too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James Cameron has proposed Avatar 2 and has promised to shoot and project it at 48 frames per second. He says for 3D higher framerates are needed. The BBC is proposing high framerate television shot at 300 frames per second and displayed at 100 frames. Even for 24 frame per second delivery a 300 frame per second capture allows you to adjust the shutter speed in post so you can later decide how much motion blur you want in each frame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if any of these patents were ever used regulary? All I know that "regular" 3D uses two fixed cameras positioned next to each other and yes, they cause headache after a few minutes...

 

I admire Mr. Camerons work but never understood some of his technical decisions. He wants 48fps but doesn't use the best/only way to do that: using film... Those 2/3"-HD-fusion-cam looks as bulky as a 65mm-stereo-cam...

 

Now we don't even have 2k on an IMAX-screen...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if any of these patents were ever used regulary? All I know that "regular" 3D uses two fixed cameras positioned next to each other and yes, they cause headache after a few minutes...

 

I admire Mr. Camerons work but never understood some of his technical decisions. He wants 48fps but doesn't use the best/only way to do that: using film... Those 2/3"-HD-fusion-cam looks as bulky as a 65mm-stereo-cam...

 

Now we don't even have 2k on an IMAX-screen...

 

Film is not the only way to shoot 48fps. Don't be silly.

 

R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which camera can shoot uncrompressed at-least 1080p/2k (non-interpolated) with 48fps? Downsample the 4k-interpolated-signal from the Phantom 65 maybe? The ARRI D-21 makes up to 60fps non-interpolated 1080p but only 4:2:2...

 

I don't think any business people can talk Mr. Cameron in his artistic/technical decisions - anymore... He is doing a 189min 3D-movie for IMAX... i wonder how expensive these prints are...

He made the first 100+Mio$-movie - and it was R-rated!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if any of these patents were ever used regulary? All I know that "regular" 3D uses two fixed cameras positioned next to each other and yes, they cause headache after a few minutes...

 

Those 2/3"-HD-fusion-cam looks as bulky as a 65mm-stereo-cam...

 

The patents are long expired, the Spottiswoode design is used quite a bit these days with small HD cameras.

 

The P + S technik stereo rig is a variation of it.

http://www.pstechnik.de/en/3d-rig.php

You have to go to the down loads to get better pictures of it.

 

The Technicolor dynoptic rig from the early 50s used the Ramsdell design with a pair of 3-strip cameras.

'Spacehunter' used the design with panaflexes. The earliest Imax 3-D rigs used the same set up.

 

http://www.3dcompany.com/mkii.html

 

Many 50s rigs had one or both lenses shooting into a mirror to bring the inter-axial closer together.

 

The Soviet Stereo70 system uses 65/70mm neg with a 26mm inter-axial.

http://stereokino.ru/ The basic rig is more compact than Cameron's older rig with a smaller inter-axial.

 

You can download Lenny Lipton's 'Foundations of Stereoscopic Cinema' here:

http://3d.curtin.edu.au/library/foundation.cfm

 

AND WATCHING 3-D FILMS DOES NOT GIVE ME HEADACHES.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys,

 

After hearing all the hype about "you won't be able to tell apart the actors from the cg characters", I watched the trailer expecting to be blown away.

 

And I absolutely wasn't.

 

Looks like a video game to me. I really don't have any interest in seeing this, but I probably will just because of the damn hype.

 

 

Jay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think James Cameron has earned our trust, don't expect a complicated, twisted story but one thing he has proven: his stories work! Aliens wasn't too sophisticated on paper, either but it propably was one of the most effective, scariest roller-coaster-rides in cinematic history!

 

Funny thing about Cameron movies is that I can watch them once and pretty much enjoy them,

but I don't want to watch them a second time. 'The Terminator' being the exception.

 

I guess I'm tired of scary roller coaster rides and would rather watch something more complicated and sophisticated.

 

i once read a Stanislaw Lem essay where he said that most SF stories are really disguised detective stories, then goes on to praise PKDick's 'Ubik'.

 

'Avatar' loks more like a redressed Western, cavalry vs. indians.

 

Disappointed? You bet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BBC is proposing high framerate television shot at 300 frames per second and displayed at 100 frames.

 

The BBC is not proposing anything of the sort. The Research paper that you are referring to was written by a couple of BBC boffins who are looking at motion blur and motion rendering from a purely technical point of view, and suggesting ways in which it could be 'improved'. They note that Interlaced video has less motion blur than Progressive scan, and that higher frame rates would further 'improve' the situation. This conveniently ignores the fact that 99% of all professional and prosumer cameras now offer progressive scan as an option precisely because that same motion blur is a desirable quality in any camera that will be used for drama production, music videos, commercials, and high end documentaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is only historically that interlaced video has less motion blur than progressive scan. Modern day progressive scan camcorders can run at 50, 60 and 120 frames per second and all but eliminate motion blurring. Motion blurring at 24 frames per second may be desirable for regular movies as it gives the film look rather than the video look but this framerate will simply not work for 3D movies. 3D movies need high frame rate progressive scan television or 3D will always remain a gimmick simply because 3D exagerates motion blurring and makes it far too noticable. Also the BBC broadcasts a lot of sports so high frame rate progressive scan television that can support 100 frames per second will be ideal for live sports broadcasts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the 15:57 min footage in Dolby 3D (regular theater). There's significant "stereo strobing" in the scenes that have a lot of horizontal movement (the usual problem in 3D theater projection). I can imagine it works better on IMAX 3D. I thought the choices made are bold and quite beautiful in it's execution. Looks like it will be an interesting ride for sure. The work Weta is doing (and maybe ILM too) is jaw dropping in amount and quality. Apparently we've seen nothing yet (according to people working on the visual effects down under). Some of the shooting style is surprisingly active. Can't wait to see the whole film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMAX 3D will only make the strobing worse because the sharper the picture the more apparent will be the strobing. 24 frames per second only works with 2 dimensional 35mm film. Once 3D is introduced the strobing artifacts start sticking out like a sour thumb because of the higher resolution. The only way you can reduce strobing in 3D is to shoot the movie at 48 frames per second. Critics will claim that the film will look like a cheesy soap opera video however what other alternative is there ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

The proper trailer is out now on http://www.avatar-movie.co.uk/

 

 

Seems to tell us a lot of the story:

 

- Big company wants to exploit the natural resources of an alien planet but are frustrated by the inhabitants.

 

- Man in a wheelchair has his mind transplanted into a gentecially engineered cross between a human and alien body and is sent to gather information from/infiltrate the aliens. If he does good he gets to walk again.

 

- Man starts to sympathsie with aliens and falls in love with one of them, turning against his original employers.

 

- ... and they all lived happily ever after (but with enough wiggle room for a sequel).

 

 

 

 

----------

 

I know it has to have mass appeal to make back what it cost, but why oh why does every film have to have a love story in it?

And why does the design look so much like Panzer Dragoon Saga crossed with a 3rd tier late-90s PC shooter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard street-talk that the budget went over 500 million. Anyone have reports on that?

 

I'm sorry, I LOVE Cameron's work but this thing looks like a damn video game. For 500 MILLION DOLLARS, I would think the aliens would be perfectly indistinguishable from live action actors in make up. I'm sure the story is great, Cameron's always are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 frames per second :wub: 48 frames per second :wub: 48 frames per second :wub: 48 frames per second :wub: 48 frames per second :wub: 48 frames per second :wub: 48 frames per second :wub: 48 frames per second :wub: 48 frames per second :wub: ...
Edited by Chris Millar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The quest for higher framerates comes not from Cinematographers who would most likely adhere to tradition but rather from the special effects artists such as Doug Trumbull who desire the most realistic special effects to overcome the problem of suspension of disbelief. In other words he does not want the audience to walk away thinking that they saw a phony movie. When filming the movie 2001 a Space Odyssey Douglas Trumbull had the overwhelming challenges of creating a model of spaceship Discovery accelerating like a racing speedboat at speeds of up to a million miles per hour in a wake of thousands of atomic bomb explosions spewing out radiation and trying to capture all of this fast action at 24 frames per second. Instead all this was dumped and all that was shown was the spaceship Discovery already up to speed and merely coasting on its way to Jupiter.

 

And the reason why James Cameron is advocating 48 frames per second is that 3D cinematography actual magnifies the temporal aliasing artifacts which although not that noticible for 2D cinematography become unacceptable for 3D cinematography.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I remember when I was starting out on all this (now, about 30 years ago) much discussion about Doug talking up going to 48 fps and higher. People seemed to be giving it some thought. As time has passed I've recognized that my eyes and brain boggle perception of motion about the same way a 24 fps film camera does. So, now, I lean in favor of keeping things the way they are since it seems to match what my gourd thinks is right for motion blur anyway. I'm of the opinion that CGI should solve it's own problems another way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

BOKEH RENTALS

Film Gears

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

CINELEASE

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...